And Now For Something Completely Different: (1/3)

We've just released a podcast episode ranking our favourite post-Thatcher Prime Ministers (here), but it's about time we looked at all the post-war Premiers.

We won't be ranking them this time, but giving you a brief bluffer's guide to each PM. We'll cover how they entered and exited office, what their main achievements/failures were, and how they governed. It's gonna be great.

However, it's also a big job, so we're breaking it down into three posts, covering three political eras: 

1) 1945-1964: the welfare state is formed as Britain struggles with diminishing world influence.

2) 1964-1990: Labour are back, but the economy is tanking. Cue Thatcher.

3) 1990-2019: the centrists dominate, but struggle with Thatcher's legacy and global crises

This post starts in the ruins of the Second World War, and ends with the expulsion of a twelve-year Tory government, forming a highly significant period in British history.

The universal welfare state is formed, with the NHS created and key industries nationalised. Big government came to stay. 

But as the country reinvented its domestic affairs it also struggled with a diminishing role on the world stage, as two hundred years of international dominance came to an end. This is the era where Britain transitioned from imperialist hegemon to progressive nation state - a legacy we're left with today.

Weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in August 1945, Churchill called a general election. The National Government that had run the country through six years of war was dissolved (more on that here.)

And after a gruelling campaign, the Labour Party shocked the nation by winning for the first time since 1926. In a landslide too. And this government was like none before it.

Clement Attlee: 1945-1952 (Lab)

If you don't study politics, you might think Attlee rather boring and unnoticeable. If you do study politics you know Attlee was boring and unnoticeable. 

Yet he spun those very traits into a sense of reliability and dedication, forging a wartime coalition, winning two elections and repairing Britain after humanity's worst crisis.

Known for introducing the National Health Service - healthcare free at the point of delivery - Attlee's government also ushered in universal pensions and national insurance, ended the empire in India, nationalised a fifth of the economy (including the Bank of England), secretly developed Britain's first A-bomb, and demobilised 1.5 million troops across the globe.  

His administration even played a role in developing the Marshall Plan - massive American loans to Europe for recovery.

All while recovering from a massive global conflict. In just his first two years, Attlee's administration spent more than any previous British government - ever. The workload nearly broke him.

His weak understanding of economics meant the economy remained chronically unstable; rationing was still in force seven years after war had ended. Yet he is today regarded as one of Britain's greatest post-war premiers, if not of all time.

Winston Churchill: 1952-1955 (Cons)

Churchill worked best as the figurehead of a balanced, rounded team - something he had done in wartime. But as an elder statesman doddering through a second term, his legacy is mixed. Having won the 1952 election, he wasn't quite sure what to do with it.

The second Churchill ministry was most prominent on international affairs. Desperate for a better Anglo-American relationship, Winston tried to create a US-Soviet detente. However, President Eisenhower remained evasive and the USSR distant.

Domestically, Churchill allowed his Cabinet to conduct the straightforward policies of building houses, ending rationing and balancing the economy. However there was a notable lack of vision, underpinned by the Prime Minister's age and deteriorating condition. After prolonged illness Churchill resigned in 1955.

Anthony Eden: 1955-1956 (Cons)

Anthony Eden was Churchill's protege and a highly capable Foreign Secretary. Chosen to lead after Churchill resigned, Eden subsequently won an election against the rudderless Labour party.

Despite his obvious skill, however, Eden's ministry is overshadowed by an operation to covertly recapture the Suez Canal from the Egyptians. 

The plan blew up in his face after the Americans (now becoming the world policeman) openly condemned the operation, along with most of the rest of the world. 

Britain was humiliated and Eden, amidst claims of lying to the Commons, resigned. He was vastly overshadowed by his successor.

Harold Macmillan: 1956-1963 (Cons)

So close, yet so far. Probably the standout Prime Minister of this era in his ingenuity, political scheming and 'grand designs', Harold Macmillan came fairly close to transforming the country. But he couldn't quite clinch it, despite election victory in 1959.

Famously declaring 'you've never had it so good' in a 1959 speech, 'Supermac' oversaw a bumpily growing economy that lowered unemployment and raised standards of living. 

However he faced the constant agony of maintaining the pound's value while trying to liberalise trade while trying to structurally transform the economy while trying to sustain high employment while trying to suppress inflation. It all culminated in 'stop-go' economics; inconsistent short-term fixes rather than medium-term plans.

In foreign policy, Prime Minister Macmillan had much more success albeit with one obvious failure. He upgraded the UK's nuclear deterrent to Polaris missiles, accelerated decolonisation, repaired the 'Special Relationship' after Suez and brokered a US-USSR test ban treaty.

However, he was unable to achieve the pivotal liberalising measure of joining the EEC - an early EU - thanks to a French veto. This was to haunt the economy. A brutal cabinet reshuffle in 1962 had already weakened his standing, but after de Gaulle's famous 'non', Macmillan ran out of road. 

Looking for an exit, and accelerated by prominent scandals (including the Profumo Affair), in late 1963, under cover of a prostate illness, Macmillan essentially announced his resignation. Frenzy ensued, during which there is evidence that he 'managed' the process of selection to favour his Foreign Secretary, the 14th Earl of Home.

Alec Douglas-Home: 1963-1964 (Cons)

Put forward as a dark horse 'compromise candidate' during the chaos of Macmillan's resignation, Lord Home controversially formed a government in late 1963, the last Lord to do so (he quickly dropped the title and became an MP).

However, with just a year until an election, Prime Minister Home was short on time and opportunities. He couldn't compare with the electrifying, power-hungry Harold Wilson in the Labour Party, and was severely undercut by dissent from his own party. 

Wilson, a skilled speaker and TV performer, convinced the electorate of a need for change in the face of a tiring Conservative Party. Come the October election, Home was booted out of office for a Labour government.

Part 2 is here, or jump ahead to Part 3 here.

And Now For Something Completely Different (2/3)

Part Two of our series on post-war Prime Ministers. Conservative dominance is ended, with the economy replacing foreign affairs as Britain's political centre. And it's economic decline which is the story here, as balancing sterling and union-driven inflation creates an intractable mess.

Harold Wilson: 1964-70 (Lab)

Harold Wilson came to power inheriting an economy with a £400 million trade deficit and without the majority to do much about it. Stop-gap measures bought time until, in 1965 a 'National Plan' was implemented, steadying the economy and giving the government breathing space.

Wilson was a smart tactician, and in 1966 used this relative calm to call an election that swung decisively his way, allowing him to lead a more confident government.

Social spending shot up, amidst growing awareness of poverty, while Roy Jenkins, one of history's few memorable Home Secretaries, introduced greater freedom for abortions, gay rights and literary publishing.

However, any attempts at long-term strategy were blown apart by strikes wobbling the pound. 

To stabilise sterling, it had to be devalued, requiring sharp cuts and damaging the party's reputation. To make matters worse, Wilson botched new industrial action regulations, which irritated the unions. (This was to prove fateful.) And then - of course - we failed to join the EEC again.

Thankfully for Labour, economic recovery beckoned, with the balance of payments going into the black. Buoyed by this, with an upbeat national mood, glorious weather, and a mediocre opposition, Wilson called an election for the summer of 1970. And we're still not quite sure how he lost it.

Ted Heath: 1970-74 (Cons)

It was Ted Heath, the quiet Conservative, who ended remaining British imperial delusions. Continuing the military retreat from bases east of Suez, letting the pound sink in value, and finally - finally! - joining the EEC all in retrospect began to create a new vision of Britain as a modern trading nation.

However, a vision was as far as Heath got.

Major strikes by the powerful National Union of Mineworkers crippled government influence and drove up inflation, while unemployment rose significantly for the first time since the 1930s; these twin crises destroyed government plans to reform the economy.

An intelligent but solitary leader, Heath struggled to cope, especially when the NUM, on its second strike in early 1974, blocked government access to coal. 

During winter. 

In response, he reduced electricity access to just three days each week (the 'three-day week)', and called an election. Where he lost his majority in a hung parliament.

Harold Wilson pt.2: 1974-76 (Lab)

The Labour Party had to govern for eight months as a minority administration, before another election in October yielded a majority of just three seats.

The one success of Wilson's second premiership was approval for EEC membership in a 1975 referendum. And even that split the Labour Party, now a constant sore for Wilson, who won tactical victories but failed to implement any coherent strategy.

Worldwide 'stagflation' set in, with high living costs (inflation hit 20% in the UK) alongside unemployment and recession, something economists hadn't thought possible. Wilson was unable to respond effectively to these crises and resigned that year with health concerns. Foreign Secretary James Callaghan easily won the party ballot.

James Callaghan: 1974-79 (Lab)

By 1974 Britain was the sick man of Europe. With unemployment persistently above a million, inflation at 16%, sterling collapsing, interest rates useless and government spending 'out of control', an IMF bailout was required, savaging confidence and government budgets. 

Callaghan was a 'political animal' but also a trusted, capable figure, adept at compromise. Yet attempts to freeze wages (and curb inflation) angered the unions who, commanding half the workforce, went on a general strike in late 1978. 

Months before, the Prime Minister, overseeing a recovery and optimistic polls, looked set to call a general election. But he backed off just before the unions shut down the country for a 'winter of discontent'. And from then on he was doomed; no-one wanted to vote for a government that left rubbish uncollected and trains idle. 

His thin majority gone in by-elections, Callaghan lost a vote of non confidence in Parliament; this forced an election. The Conservatives ran out easy winners under a formidable leader. Labour were out, and would remain in the wilderness for 18 years.

Margaret Thatcher: 1979-1990 (Cons)

Unlike that other great post-war Tory leader, Macmillan, Margaret Thatcher was not a grand schemer. Her leadership was a blatant opportunism that rammed through action by force of will, chopping and changing ideas and ministers as she liked. She would start with economic reform.

'Thatcherites' believed that if inflation could be reduced, everything else would fall into place. The 1981 budget is famous for its financial harshness in that respect. Despite a recession and collapsing employment, spending was cut to the bone, and the government started haemorrhaging support. 

Not that Thatcher cared. Although she probably appreciated what victory in the Falklands did to Conservative fortunes. With national morale up, and with her determined leadership on display, 1983 was a landslide against the divided Labour Party. 

This gave her a mandate to face down the trade unions; mining and newspaper printing strikes in 1984/5 were bloodily crushed, and the unions have never recovered. And anyway, the economy started to boom, which swung Britain back into optimism.

That 1983 victory also allowed Thatcher to consolidate power and act on her own judgement. Firms were privatised, council housing stock sold-off, income tax slashed twice. Never mind that the new British Telecom and British Airways were monopolies, that there was now precious little housing available for those who needed it most, and that welfare cuts accompanied tax cuts.  

Thatcher knew the consequences and, frankly, didn't care. The poor were their own fault, lazy and idle, and didn't deserve government help.

And then she overreached. Nigel Lawson's hubristic tax cuts in 1988 unleashed inflation again and interest rates had to be jacked up. 
Thatcher herself rolled out an unpopular, regressive 'Poll Tax', which surmised the story of the decade as the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'. 

And her quiet Deputy Prime Minister, Nigel Howe, frustrated at Thatcher's behaviour towards Europe and ground down by a decade of her self-interested bullying, resigned. The party was shocked into moving against her, and very quickly manoeuvred her out of office.

That was that.

But her legacy remains. A neoliberal, market-centered economy. Union power broken. Politics split on a north-south, rich-poor divide. Inequality entrenched. And a fresh recession for her successor. Read on here, or go back here.

And Now For Something Completely Different (3/3)

Thatcher's out. But who follows the century's greatest stateswoman? This is a hotpotch period, as Prime Ministers grapple with Maggie's economic legacy, but also have to respond to a series of devastating global crises.

John Major: 1990-1997 (Cons)

Just as Callaghan was overshadowed by his successor, plain John Major was also overshadowed by Thatcher, and, similarly, had to face an energised opposition.

And he didn't do too badly. Sound economic management meant a decline in unemployment and recovery from recession. 

Successful involvement in the First Gulf War, and opt-outs from closer European integration raised his standing, as did beginning the Northern Ireland peace process. 

However, in 1992 was 'Black Wednesday' where leaving a European currency exchange system crashed the pound and permanently wiped out Major's poll lead. This and continual party sleaze gave the revived Labour Party vast ammunition. 

Major couldn't compete with their opposition's energy and in 1997 was crushed on a scale not seen since 1832.

Tony Blair: 1997-2007 (Lab)

Blair's premiership sprawls everywhere. Big government, big spending, big bureaucracy; 'blairism' simply swamped the political system. Yet underneath the flab was a redefining of Britain not seen since the sixties. 

Blair made the state great again. Welfare, education and health were entirely overhauled, with vast building programs to boot.
Legislation introduced the minimum wage and expanded police powers, while the army took an active role abroad in places such as Kosovo and Sierra Leone. 

The Anglo-American relationship soared, but so did the UK-EU partnership, an unusual balancing act.

Blair embodied the idea of a 'presidential' prime minister. One of the greatest speakers in Downing Street's history - he played the Commons 'like the London Palladium' - his presentation was second-to-none, which resulted in comfortable victories in three consecutive elections. 

Those successes inflated Blair's presidentialism further; he was in charge and expected everyone else to fall in. 
Decisions were made in a small team and above the heads of ministers, with intense effort devoted to 'spinning' the media favourably. 

While this allowed him to overcome crises such as foot-and-mouth, Northern Ireland, and, most crucially, 9/11, it also slowly came back to bite him. Poor decision-making and accountability led to the blunder of the Iraq War. 

His hubris also destroyed a very successful working relationship with Chancellor Gordon Brown. Despite winning a third election in 2005, under pressure on those two fronts Blair was forced to bow out in mid-2007. Brown subsequently took over. 

Gordon Brown: 2007-2010 (Lab)

A doctoral graduate, an efficient Chancellor, a 'brooding' figure with a monstrous temper, Gordon Brown probably saved the world financial system. 

In October 2008, when the markets went into free-fall over subprime loans, 'there was a real possibility of a total banking collapse'. 

Brown first correctly judged that a vast bailout was needed to prop up the banking system (£500bn in the UK), and then also convinced much of the western world of that urgent need. 

America, France and Germany all followed suit, calming the markets and likely stopping a global societal collapse (although there was no avoiding a global recession.)

However well managed, an economic crash does not lend itself to electoral victory, alas. 

Brown had rejected a good election opportunity in 2007, and his chance of winning an election permanently declined after Lehman Brothers collapsed; in 2010 he oversaw an inevitable Labour defeat. But the Conservatives couldn't quite make a majority.

David Cameron: 2010-2016 (Cons with Liberal Democrat coalition until 2015)

A youthful contrast to the sulky Brown, David Cameron was determined to carry a modernised, socially liberal Conservative party into power, and overturn New Labour's 'big government' legacy. However, he had to do it for five years with Liberal Democrat help.

Head of Britain's first official coalition since 1945, Cameron oversaw an unexpectedly stable government that, in order to stabilise the economy post-financial crash, conducted deep austerity measures. 

These proved controversial, with the NHS under increasing pressure (despite not being directly affected) and welfare spending sharply reduced. The legacy of austerity will continue to provoke serious dispute for years, although by doing so he successfully reduced the budget deficit - something that often draws praise.

Cameron's other memorable moment was the calling of an EU membership referendum in 2016 in order to secure a 'remain' vote and end divisions in the Conservative Party. 

But despite winning a general election the year before, the national mood swung against him with a slim majority in favour of 'Leave'; a shock result. Cameron promptly resigned, triggering a Party leadership election.

Theresa May: 2016-2019 (Cons)

As strong and stable as a magic money tree, Theresa May's time in office connotes a Shakespearean tragedy: started mediocre, and only got worse. Despite promising social change and 'ending austerity', hers was a single-issue premiership.

After doing very little of substance, May confidently called a general election in 2017. 

Unexpectedly, however, the Labour Party, under socialist Jeremy Corbyn, rapidly ate into her thin majority, forcing her to return to Parliament humiliated and dependent on some sulky Northern Irish unionists for a majority.
And her own party, torn over Brexit, failed to provide coherent support.

Bereft of ideas, short on allies, presiding over a Party in its worst mood since the mid-1800s, May was stuck in limbo, with power draining from her every time she failed to pass a Brexit Bill. Obviously without popular support, confirmed in damning European Elections in mid-2019, she was forced to resign, having achieved little.

Her successor, however, is another story...

Read Part 1 again here, or Part 2 here.

Thanks for reading! We hope you enjoyed this series - it took a lot of research and writing to make it happen. Consider leaving a comment, or listening to our podcast episodes here to show your support.

If you'd like to read further, the sources we used are below. All are well-written and enjoyable, but we'd particularly recommend 'Citizen Clem' - a biography of Clement Attlee - and 'Hope and Glory' - British politics from 1900-2000.

(All quotes and information from these sources or Wikipedia)

• 'Citizen Clem' - John Bew: Clement Attlee biography, especially interesting for World War Two and early-post war politics
• 'Winds of Change' - Peter Hennessey: a story of Britain in the early 60s, as Macmillan reaches his high and low, eventually replaced by Douglas-Home.
• Hope and Glory' - Peter Clarke: a concise, wide-ranging discussion of British politics through the century. 
• 'For the Record' - David Cameron: memoirs by David Cameron
• 'A Journey' - Tony Blair: memoirs by Tony Blair
• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-saved-banks
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/gordon-brown-save-world-uk: both useful resources for understanding Brown and the Bailout

A Fresh Approach

Theo normally writes on this blog, but today Colin Stokes, who grew up in the Second World War and its aftermath, gives his thoughts on Covid-19, and whether a National Government is the way forward.

The Problem

Here we are in the centre of a pandemic; something I never thought would write. Through the years we have somehow manged countless worrying situations – most of which have been human-made: banks going bust; 3-day week; interest rates at over 15%; business shut downs; industrial change; increases in poverty, and so on.

But this time the situation is different. It is nature fighting back against the human world, a world failing to realise that it was built by destroying nature. This is a situation being spread by travel – air and sea – spread by crowds together, spread by a simple cough.

The nearest I can remember witnessing anything like this was when we had a world war. But then that was man-made as well, and it was a world problem, not a UK problem or a family problem. We were all involved in the fight then, as now, but there was much less responsibility then. We couldn't change the war ourselves. This time even that is different. If we don't self-isolate, we could end a life.

The British Solution?

So this is a new situation. We are challenged by it, but so are our leaders. How should they respond? What does Boris Johnson do?

We must remember that in all great historical crises there's never a magic map of what to do. It seems like there should be, but each problem is different and requires unique responses. This time is no different. There is no easy answer. But history may help.

Our political system is set up to be constantly confrontational; the opposition must argue, debate and question against the government, who in turn fight back. It is not set up to deal with a problem that requires unity - a pandemic, least of all. So how do we overcome the lack of compromise, and forge a united parliament?

At the top of all the British political parties are well-meaning individuals with great intellectual capacity. Of course, you may not agree with many, or maybe none, of them. But the reality is they are our leaders. Voted in, and responsible. They must take charge. Yet the current system means that either side can only ever command about half of the country. Half of the brains and backing are out of reach.

This cannot stand. In the last world crisis the UK faced, it was Labour who, in tandem with Churchill, created a 'government of national unity'. A government where all parties worked together, took up cabinet posts together, and abstained from fighting each other in favour of a greater goal. Winston Churchill is (rightly) remembered as the front-man, but it was a team which saved us from the Nazis.

For instance, in the first war cabinet were Conservatives Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, with Labour MPs Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood. It was these key figures who first set the country on its path to victory.

And never since has the call been so strong for a united front, drawing from all the depth of British public service. Imagine Labour stalwarts such as Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper working alongside Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove, pooling their experience and dedication, creating a consensus to respond to this crisis. Instead, we have Corbyn on the sidelines, watching, as the government implements the exact policies he promised in the 2019 election.

The wartime coalition locked in the critics looking for political gain, and meant all those in Westminster and Whitehall were focused on a common goal: victory. Every voter was represented. Every opinion was heard. 100% of the effort was aimed at solving the problem.

And that is what we need right now.

Despite their differences, will Boris realise this is the moment to reach across the divide, and have the humility to ask for Labour's help?

He is being lauded as a capable Prime Minister for his response so far to Coronavirus, but this is a crisis which will keep on rolling and he'll need all the help he can get before long.

It's time to stop being a good PM, and to become a great man.

It's time to call a National Government.


CTS 20/03/27

Pointing Fingers - From 2 Metres Away

'To what extent was the British Government's Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2020 limited by austerity cuts on the NHS?'

And we thought David Cameron's reputation couldn't get much worse.

Already a pariah Prime Minister after calling a divisive referendum which he can't be on the right side of, he will likely now get the blame for the weakness of public services during one of the most serious pandemics in modern history.

The man can't win.

In the largest ranking of post-war prime ministers since the referendum, Cameron sits at an embarrassing eleventh (out of thirteen). This is in large part because of said referendum, which was called to heal the Conservative Party but ended up ripping apart the country, but also because of his controversial response to the Great Recession.

With an economy in recession, unemployment rising, and a hefty budget deficit (where government revenue is less than government spending), Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, cut government spending by nearly £15bn in three years; mostly focusing on welfare, social services and local government.

And even when Cameron fell in 2016, Theresa May's government continued the programme. By 2019, there had been £30bn in spending reductions. Even though under her watch austerity was technically ended, aside from health there have been no 'real' increases in spending since ('real' means above inflation, i.e. actually increasing spending levels).

It's important to note that spending on the NHS didn't decrease in real terms across the decade - Cameron and Osborne 'ring-fenced' it. But until 2017 it didn't increase either. That left it unable to cope with the indirect consequences of lower social care and local government spending. It also means that it hasn't received the serious investment needed to respond to a crisis - such as the yearly winter crisis.

Or, say, a pandemic.

When the spread of Covid-19 decreases, there will be a post-mortem on the NHS and its response to coronavirus. And already it is blindingly clear that the provider of, objectively, the highest quality healthcare in the world (not overall best though - more here), is unable to respond to the demand.

A 'tsunami', an 'explosion' of cases in London hospitals has left them short of intensive care beds, compounded by a further shortage of staff. There is a chronic lack of equipment and protective clothing. Retired medics, volunteers and the army are being drafted in.

To link all these shortfalls to austerity would be a poor piece of political theatre. Healthcare systems around the world have been swamped by Covid-19. Many of the shortages are simply because staff are falling ill. There was no need for thousands of extra respirators a year ago. This is a crisis that the globalised world has never before faced, and is far more significant than policy decisions made ten years previously.

However, there is an arguable link. The NHS could well have been in a structurally more robust place, with more beds and capacity than it otherwise was in early 2020. It may have moved quicker, more effectively, needing less support, if not for a lack of spending. It could never have prevented or limited the disease, but it may have inspired more confidence.

And the concerns are already there. Austerity is being openly linked as the root cause of all the issues the NHS is facing. That is wrong.

But, still, when the dust settles, Cameron will be blamed.

He may have successfully dragged the economy out of a recession, but this, and the referendum?

He'll be this century's Chamberlain.

D-Day or Dull Days?

This is an unprecedented period in human history.

Flights blocked, schools shut, workplaces closing. A £350bn investment from the government which still might not be enough.

The creator of a favourite Facebook page of mine, 'Humans of New York', compared the Covid-19 pandemic to our generation's World War Two. For me, that was the moment I realised how large this crisis is.

The news is filled with headlines of marauding shoppers and caring neighbours, contrasting vast government spending with small businesses on the verge of collapse. The national mood is unsettled and incapable of standing on its own two feet. We do not know how to feel or what to feel or why we do feel because we are out of our depth, drowning.

And amidst it all, aren't you rather bored?

Step away from the screen you're killing time with. Think.

What have you done today?

Me? In eight hours, I've done some some easy jobs, played a game of Age of Empires, repeatedly checked social media and put off some urgent studying.

My life has been meaningless today, and I'm not even in isolation (although being on a deserted uni campus, I might as well be). How does yours compare? How will it compare a week from now, when the structures of life break down even further?

This may be the biggest global crisis since the Second World War, but frankly, just like most crises in history, us average citizens will have to sit in slobby boredom until it all blows over. We'll blank-face our way through Netflix, Prime and Instagram on repeat, until we're allowed to publicly cough again.

World War Two lasted 2176 days - a vast period of time. And for all the battles and epic clashes, how many periods were there of nothingness; of going to work; of people knowing they had no influence on events whatsoever. For every D-Day, there were ten more days of banal newspaper headlines and food rationing to endure. How dull it must have been.

Because that's what will happen now. The experts are suggesting it could be eighteen months until a vaccine is successfully created. And jack-all is going to happen in our lives until then.